Brexit would leave the field clear for those on the right who always hated the idea that by intervening in the economy for the public good we should build an energy system that is clean, efficient, decentralised and driven by the needs of households and communities, not overbearing private corporations.

The new $20-million U.S.-India Clean Energy Finance (USICEF) initiative will mobilize up to $400 million to provide clean and renewable electricity to up to 1 million households by 2020, the White House said. Another $40-million U.S.-India Catalytic Solar Finance Program will provide financing for small-scale renewable energy investment, "particularly in poorer, rural villages that are not connected to the grid." That initiative is expected to catalyze up to $1 billion worth of projects. Both financing projects will be equally supported by the two countries.

“It is incumbent on me to underline that this proposal from parliament is really about carbon offsets,” Helgesen told the Guardian. “It is not about national emissions reductions beyond what we will contribute, through the EU process.”

France on Wednesday became the second European country to ratify, after Hungary, and the first the Group of Seven advanced economies. The ratification was formally authorized by the French parliament last week....China, the world's top carbon emitter, said it intends to ratify the agreement before the G-20 summit in China in September. The United States, the second-largest emitter, also announced its intention to ratify this year.

Is the European Environment Agency data cause for much optimism? The graph in that linked Climate Home article shows that carbon emissions have fallen at a rate of less than 1% a year over recent 24 years.

After updating IPCC's remaining carbon budget, I have calculated the rates at which carbon emissions must fall to make these budgets last until the second half of the century. The calculation is in Is Green Growth a fantasy?

(The remaining carbon budgets are the IPCC figures divided by the number of people in the world.)

Quote

Postscript 28 April 2016

Updates for the remaining carbon budgets

More than a year has passed since Carbon Brief’s calculation in November 2014. So reducing the carbon budgets by emissions since then (7 tonnes CO2) gives

The remaining carbon budget for a 66% chance of avoiding 1.5˚C is now… 26 tonnes CO2 per person.

This requires a yearly rate of decarbonisation of 15%

The remaining carbon budget for a 66% chance of avoiding 2.0˚C is now… 108 tonnes CO2 per person.

This requires a yearly rate of decarbonisation of 4%

(The following needs checking….)

However, these budgets are too high because this only accounts for the effects of CO2 and do not take account of other greenhouse gasses. The World Resources Institute says:

“one can argue for an even smaller budget and additional emissions constraints because non-CO2 gases are not included in 1 trillion tonne C figure. For example, short-lived greenhouse gases, such as methane, are not included in – nor necessarily appropriate for – the 1 trillion tonne C budget approach because they play a secondary role in influencing long-term warming.

However, when non-CO2 forcings are taken into account, the budget is reduced and that budget may depend on the scenario studied. For example, according to one scenario studied in the IPCC AR5 (RCP 2.6), when non-CO2 greenhouse gases are considered, the budget drops much lower to 790 PgC.”

That means that the effect of other greenhouse gasses reduces the overall budget to 79% of the original. The remaining carbon budgets are measured in terms of CO2 so, as a rough estimate they should be reduced by 21%. This now gives

"Is decreasing carbon emissions by even 4% without cutting world GDP possible?"

hehehehe. I laugh so as not to cry.

Here is a (possibly apocryphal) quote:

"You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how."

So, for example, it is entirely possible to count the GDP in websites and phone apps created, and entirely discount dead people in small faraway countries ... decreasing CO2 by mass death while GDP increases is merely a matter of accounting.

Is the European Environment Agency data cause for much optimism? The graph in that linked Climate Home article shows that carbon emissions have fallen at a rate of less than 1% a year over recent 24 years.

After updating IPCC's remaining carbon budget, I have calculated the rates at which carbon emissions must fall to make these budgets last until the second half of the century. The calculation is in Is Green Growth a fantasy?

(The remaining carbon budgets are the IPCC figures divided by the number of people in the world.)

Quote

Postscript 28 April 2016

Updates for the remaining carbon budgets

More than a year has passed since Carbon Brief’s calculation in November 2014. So reducing the carbon budgets by emissions since then (7 tonnes CO2) gives

The remaining carbon budget for a 66% chance of avoiding 1.5˚C is now… 26 tonnes CO2 per person.

This requires a yearly rate of decarbonisation of 15%

The remaining carbon budget for a 66% chance of avoiding 2.0˚C is now… 108 tonnes CO2 per person.

This requires a yearly rate of decarbonisation of 4%

(The following needs checking….)

However, these budgets are too high because this only accounts for the effects of CO2 and do not take account of other greenhouse gasses. The World Resources Institute says:

“one can argue for an even smaller budget and additional emissions constraints because non-CO2 gases are not included in 1 trillion tonne C figure. For example, short-lived greenhouse gases, such as methane, are not included in – nor necessarily appropriate for – the 1 trillion tonne C budget approach because they play a secondary role in influencing long-term warming.<snip>

Is decreasing carbon emissions by even 4% without cutting world GDP possible?

P.S. I'd be pleased with any corrections.

This is a big zombie, "For example, short-lived greenhouse gases, such as methane, are not included in – nor necessarily appropriate for – the 1 trillion tonne C budget approach because they play a secondary role in influencing long-term warming.".

CH4 is 100-times more potent for 1-2 decades what's converted turns to CO2 so doesn't disappear!!!

The remaining in the sky whatever is very long-term thousands of years as CO2 does and at 1-century later it's 23-times more potent often quoted at 25-times more potent.

It's like saying "clean coal", or that "natural gas" is a "transition" fuel when the pipelines and city infrastructure reeks of methane to the point of a health hazard not to mention mysterious total demolition of homes or businesses.

The CARVE program identified this kind of emission profile above tundra, we can't turn that off easy, eh?

decreasing CO2 by mass death while GDP increases is merely a matter of accounting.

Mass death of the poor doesn't decrease CO2 much. This OXFAM infographic shows that the rich (us?) must cut emissions or watch the poor die (as we are doing now) - then our descendants may die off too ..

OXFAM kindly let me use this image in a posting about "sustainable developments" just were not sustainable: Three failed eco-towns.

Does anyone know of any "sustainable developments" (for us in the rich world) that come anywhere near to being really sustainable?

Is the European Environment Agency data cause for much optimism? The graph in that linked Climate Home article shows that carbon emissions have fallen at a rate of less than 1% a year over recent 24 years.

<snip>

I agree the article was trying to put a massive positive spin on a comparatively tiny accomplishment. Perhaps they felt that was a better approach than saying, "Is that all you can do?"

Logged

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sleepy

Does anyone know of any "sustainable developments" (for us in the rich world) that come anywhere near to being really sustainable?

No.

Sweden is supposed to be one of the best ones out there, but it's now clearer than ever that our leaders are still BAU. They really, really want to sell our/Vattenfalls earth destroying business to EPH, let's see how that goes because they have rather low support from the people who voted for them and EPH is not exactly a green mean machine with an outstanding environmental policy.They recently decided to keep our nuclear forever (Vattenfall likes that), which is far away from what was agreed upon in 1980. And all of the above with our green party (MP) in the government...

Some of our leaders were not born in 1980 but most of them maintain a highly positive attitude, "we will fix this" and they aim for 100% renewables. We're more like an alcoholic, replacing whiskey with beer while talking about future sober days, which is the requirement for a liver transplant. We can't get a new earth.

Cities in six continents joined up to form the world's largest alliance to combat climate change on Wednesday, a move intended to help make ground-level changes to slow global warming.

More than 7,100 cities in 119 countries formed the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, a network for helping exchange information on such goals as developing clean energy, organizers said.

Cities are responsible for an estimated 75 percent of carbon emissions contributing to climate change and consume 70 percent of global energy, according to the United Nations Environment Programme.

"When mayors share a vision of a low-carbon future and roll up their sleeves, things get done," said Maros Sefcovic, the European Commission vice-president and co-chairman of the new alliance, in a statement.

The coalition is the world's largest, representing 8 percent of the world's population, its founders said. It results from the merger of two groups - the European Union's Covenant of Mayors and the U.N.-backed Compact of Mayors.

The other co-chairman is former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire philanthropist who helped launch the Compact of Mayors.

Brexit Sparks Worry About Fate of Global Climate ActionWhile the full implications of Britain’s decision remain unclear, many fear the wave of nationalism will harm international efforts to halt global warming.

Quote

Britain's surprising vote to leave the European Union in a national referendum on Thursday sent a shock through global financial markets, and there is similar concern that the move will have profound implications for climate policy as well.

Clean energy investments, carbon markets and the Paris climate agreement weren't a major part of the calculus when Britons went to the polls, but now environmentalists fear Britain's contribution to global climate action may be compromised, with negative ramifications for global warming.

LONDON — The United Kingdom's decision to sever itself from the European Union on Friday exposed something approaching an intergenerational war of ideas.

While the "Leave" campaign won the referendum with 51.9 percent of the vote, young people — the ones who will likely grapple with the decision for decades — overwhelmingly wanted to remain part of the EU.

According to data gathered by the British pollster YouGov on election day, a staggering 75 percent of people aged between 18 and 24 voted for Remain.

But this youthful bloc was outweighed by an even stronger force.

What pushed the country toward Brexit, according to pollsters, was a remarkably high turnout among white, working-class older people — most of whom who voted Leave.

"The young have lost the referendum and the old have won," according to Ben Page, chief executive of Ipsos MORI, another British polling company.

Sixty-one percent of people over the age of 65 voted Leave, according to YouGov's data.

...Our modeling suggests that CPP compliance can be achieved cost effectively by expanding new natural gas and renewable electricity generation to replace higher emitting coal generation and by using energy efficiency to curb demand growth, thereby enabling a more affordable pace of plant replacements. Post-2030 policies requiring further CO2 emission reductions, in combination with perfect foresight today, would motivate less natural gas build-out over the next 15 years. The South’s response to the CPP is distinct, with a larger share of coal retirements and a greater proportionate uptake of natural gas, energy efficiency, and renewable resources. In addition to reducing CO2 emissions, these least-cost compliance scenarios would produce substantial collateral benefits including lower electricity bills across all customer classes and significant reductions in local air pollution.

Orr said Figueres' presence in the race would be "healthy" because it would put climate change "front and center" as an issue that candidates for the job would be questioned about and evaluated on. "Until now, it's been virtually absent," he said.

János Pásztor, Ban's senior adviser on climate change, said it is critical for the next secretary-general to make global warming a top priority.

Extract: "Britain voted last Thursday for a so-called ‘Brexit’, but is in no hurry to invoke Article 50, which starts formal exit negotiations.“All key decisions will have to wait for the new prime minister,” David Cameron, who is stepping aside, told parliament on Monday.That will take months, with the Conservative Party due to choose a new leader by October and mounting calls for a general election to follow.The uncertainty is expected to further delay Brussels’ ratification of the Paris climate agreement and plans to put its targets into practice.…The European Commission was drafting proposals, due on 20 July, to carve up its 2030 target among 28 member states. Now it looks likely, but not certain, to be 27 – and that timeline is in doubt.Britain has been doing more than average. If the EU is to stick to its goal of a 40% emissions cut from 1990 levels, the remaining members must make more effort.Former UK energy and climate chief Ed Davey does not see much political will to do so, telling Climate Home: “[Brexit] is going to move the numbers more against an ambitious policy in Europe.”"

Logged

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” ― Leon C. Megginson

Sleepy

Sleepy,One can only hope that talking to other Covenant members will educate Gothenburg on what works, where to find resources, and on the need for speed....

Sorry Sig, didn't notice your reply while reading here yesterday. Sure, speed is needed but instead they are playing a chicken race with AGW. My point was that Gothenburg already contains all the knowlege required to convince their leaders. Gothenburg will have to build a levee inland and redirect Göta Älv as well, not only those two against the ocean. But after that they are still not safe, thanks to the other streams/rivers shown on the map (the three levees in black) during heavy precipitation. I remember "Mölndalsån" flooding in the 70's and that part of Gothenburg, toghether with the two levees against the ocean will become an island at 3m SLR. Which is also where the tunnels will be... The black lines on the map are drawn by me.

Government Think Tank Pushes Canada to Think Beyond Its Oil DependenceReport reveals unusually frank assessment of Canada’s energy future, which it says will be shaped by falling costs of renewables as well as pollution pressures.

Quote

A Canadian government think tank is calling for the country to make a seismic shift away from its economic dependence on oil production or risk being left behind as the world moves rapidly away from fossil fuel use.

The draft report, by Policy Horizons Canada, is an unusually frank assessment by a government agency on the uncertain future of fossil fuels, especially considering the large role that oil plays in Canada's economy. The report is titled "Canada in a Changing Energy Global Energy Landscape," and says that Canada should begin to adjust its energy priorities to prepare for the significant changes in the energy landscape expected to occur within the next 10-15 years.

The powerful drivers pushing Canada in this direction are the falling costs of renewable energy, led by wind and solar; the increasing proportion of electricity in global energy use; and the pressures on countries to grow their economies while slashing greenhouse gas emissions and dangerous air pollution.

"In combination, these drivers could lead to renewable-sourced electricity replacing fossil fuels as the dominant form of primary energy used in the global economy for most industrial, commercial and personal activity," the report said.

The authors, citing dozens of scientific papers and articles, said they foresee a near future in which the world's power plants, factories, industries and vehicles are increasingly powered by wind and solar electricity. That may happen much faster than predicted, "significantly disrupting fossil fuel markets." And while Canada "would be relatively well placed to take advantage of an electricity-based industrial ecosystem," the report said, the repercussions on its petroleum assets and economy would be vast.

I do not know whether Brexit is good for the climate, but Carbon Brief provides the linked article entitled: "Brexit: 94 unanswered questions for climate and energy policy", that discusses areas where Brexit makes the fight against climate change harder and less certain to be effective:

Extract: "… Rudd conceded that the referendum result had made the path to climate action harder, raising a host of questions. Adding to the air of uncertainty, there is now the prospect of a new Conservative prime minister being in place by September, as well as the possibility of a snap general election."

Logged

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” ― Leon C. Megginson

The U.K. government is poised to adopt this week new targets for reining in fossil-fuel pollution around 2030, a move that could assure investors in clean energy that the nation will leave environmental goals intact despite voting to exit the European Union.

Amber Rudd, who leads the the Department of Energy and Climate Change, is set to endorse a proposal to cut U.K. emissions by 57 percent below 1990 levels by 2032, according to a person with knowledge of the plan who asked not to be named before the official announcement. The government is adopting a recommendation made in November by its adviser, the Committee on Climate Change.

City of Sydney targets 50% renewables by 2030, net zero emissions by 2050

The City of Sydney has raised the bar on its renewable energy and climate targets, with the release of a new five-year plan that targets 50 per cent renewable electricity by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050.

Richest nations fail to agree on deadline to phase out fossil fuel subsidies

Quote

BEIJING — Energy ministers from the world’s major economies have failed to reach agreement on a deadline to phase out hundreds of billions of dollars in government subsidies for fossil fuels — subsidies that campaigners say are helping to propel the globe toward potentially devastating climate change.

Ministers from the Group of 20 major economies met in Beijing on Wednesday and Thursday but failed to reach agreement on a deadline, despite Chinese and American efforts and a joint appeal from 200 nongovernmental organizations.

The Group of Seven richest economies last month urged all countries to eliminate “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. At a separate annual meeting in June, the United States and China agreed to push for a firm target date to be set at a summit of G-20 leaders in Hangzhou in September.

Nongovernmental groups are urging a “full and equitable phase-out by all G20 members of all fossil fuel subsidies by 2020, starting with the elimination of all subsidies for fossil fuel exploration and coal production.”

But energy ministers from the G-20 failed to reach agreement on a deadline this week.

The linked reference was authored by many of the people who developed the RCP scenarios, and their ESLD analysis indicates that following the Paris Pact approach we not achieve the Paris Pact, nor the IPCC, targets (see the attached image):

Abstract: "The Paris climate agreement aims at holding global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius and to “pursue efforts” to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius. To accomplish this, countries have submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) outlining their post-2020 climate action. Here we assess the effect of current INDCs on reducing aggregate greenhouse gas emissions, its implications for achieving the temperature objective of the Paris climate agreement, and potential options for overachievement. The INDCs collectively lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to where current policies stand, but still imply a median warming of 2.6–3.1 degrees Celsius by 2100. More can be achieved, because the agreement stipulates that targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are strengthened over time, both in ambition and scope. Substantial enhancement or over-delivery on current INDCs by additional national, sub-national and non-state actions is required to maintain a reasonable chance of meeting the target of keeping warming well below 2 degrees Celsius."

Abstract: "The study also provides a careful analysis of the uncertainties surrounding future emissions and temperature targets. For one thing, the emissions reductions from the INDCs remain uncertain, since the INDC’s themselves are not consistently framed, and some of the pledges include conditional statements, for example, that a country will only implement ambitious emissions reductions if it receives funding from others. Comparing the possible emission levels that the INDC’s could imply, the researchers found a range of uncertainties of 6 billion tons of CO2 equivalent, or roughly the entire emissions of the United States in the year 2012.The other major uncertainty lies in how much temperatures will rise in response to various emission levels. For this reason, temperature targets are often interpreted in terms of probabilities, with the aim to have a 66% likelihood of keeping temperature to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. The study also found that the same INDCs would only avoid 2.9-3.4°C of warming with a 66% chance and 3.5-4.2°C of warming with 90% chance until 2100."

Extract: "We've passed the point of no return when it comes to stopping a rise of 1.5°C (2.7°F) in global temperatures, a new study has found. That 1.5°C figure was a "stretch goal" set down by the countries who signed up to the Paris agreement last December, but we've already well and truly missed the mark."

“Secretary Clinton believes that meeting the climate challenge is too important to wait for climate deniers in Congress to pass comprehensive climate legislation.”

Hillary Clinton’s Ambitious Climate Change Plan Avoids Carbon Tax

Quote

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton, courting young voters and the broader Democratic base, has promised to one-up President Obama on climate change, vowing to produce a third of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027, three years faster than Mr. Obama, while spending billions of dollars to transform the energy economy.

A half-billion solar panels will be installed by 2020, she has promised, seven times the number today, and $60 billion will go to states and cities to develop more climate-friendly infrastructure, such as public transportation and energy-efficient buildings. She would put the United States on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent from 2005 levels by 2050. And, she says, she could achieve all that without new legislation from Congress.

But Mrs. Clinton has avoided mention of the one policy that economists widely see as the most effective way to tackle climate change — and one that would need Congress’s assent: putting a price or tax on carbon dioxide emissions.

“It’s possible, theoretically, to do all this without a price on carbon,” said David Victor, the director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California, San Diego. But, he added, “it’s hard to see how.”

“The problem is,” he said, “she knows the politics of this are toxic.”

New Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Starts Building a Green Future

Quote

People watched closely when China launched the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) last year. The new multilateral development bank boasted an initial capital of $100 billion, a founding membership of 57 countries (with 24 more waiting to join end of this year), and a mandate to be “lean, clean and green.” After its first annual general meeting and seminars this week, it appears that the AIIB is starting to move in a positive direction.

The linked Op-Ed piece is based largely on German's experience in trying to transform into a "Green Economy", and it indicates that this process will be harder than most people (Paris Pact negotiators) think:

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/limits-to-green-growth-by-lili-fuhr-et-al-2016-07Extract: "Will reconciling environmental and economic imperatives be harder than we think? In a word, yes. The mainstream perception is that the green economy will enable us to break free from our dependence on fossil fuels, without sacrificing growth. Many argue that the shift to a green economy can even spur new growth. But, as appealing as this idea is, it is not realistic, as we show in our new book Inside the Green Economy. To be sure, it is possible for a genuinely “green” economy to be prosperous. But the model that prevails today focuses on quick and easy solutions. Moreover, it reasserts the primacy of economics, thereby failing to recognize the depth of the transformation that is required. Instead of rethinking our economies with a view to adapting their functioning to environmental limits and imperatives, today’s green economy seeks to redefine nature, in order to adapt it to existing economic systems. We now attach a monetary value to nature and add it to our balance sheets, with the protection of “natural capital,” such as ecosystem services, offsetting environmental degradation, gauged by the global abstract currency of carbon metrics. New market-based mechanisms, such as the trading of biodiversity credits, exemplify this approach. None of this prevents the destruction of nature; it simply reorganizes that destruction along market lines. As a result of this narrow approach, current conceptions of the green economy have so many blind spots that the entire enterprise should be regarded as largely a matter of faith. The most powerful talisman is technological innovation, which justifies simply waiting for a cure-all invention to come along. But, though new ideas and innovations are obviously vital to address complex challenges, environmental or otherwise, they are neither automatic nor inevitable.…If we are to decouple economic growth from energy consumption and achieve real resource efficiency in a world of nine billion, much less ensure justice for all, we cannot let the economy lead the way. Instead, we must view the green transformation as a political task. Only a political approach can manage, through genuinely representative institutions, differences of opinion and interest, guided by the kind of open debate, engaging civil society, that is vital to a pluralistic democracy. …The real problem is the lack of political will to implement and scale up those innovations opposed by vested economic interests. The challenge is thus to overcome these minority interests and ensure the protection of the broader public good – a task that is often left to civil society. Some might argue that calling for radical transformation, rather than incremental change, is inappropriate. At a time when the world faces so many pressing challenges, from economic stagnation to political upheaval to massive refugee flows, any progress toward sustainability should be viewed as a victory. Pragmatic, politically feasible solutions to the environmental crisis should be celebrated, not criticized. …The task that the world’s democracies face today is to continue the project of modernity, embracing the latest knowledge about planetary boundaries, while advancing broad democratic participation and reducing poverty and social injustice. This is no small undertaking, and requires passion and tenacity. But it is not beyond our capacity. The first step is to recognize the constraints that the “green economy” places on thought and action."

Logged

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” ― Leon C. Megginson

The linked article uses ESLD assumptions to conclude that following the Paris Pact will require not only cuts in emissions but also the use of negative emissions technology by 2085 (see image), to have a 66% chance of staying below 2C:

Abstract: "The 2015 Paris Agreement aims to limit warming to 2 or 1.5°C above preindustrial level, although combined Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) are likely insufficient to achieve these targets. We propose a set of idealized emission pathways consistent with the targets. If countries reduce emissions in line with their INDCs, the 2°C threshold could be avoided only if net zero greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs) are achieved by 2085 and late century negative emissions are considerably in excess of those assumed in Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6 (net −5 Gt CO2/yr, compared with −1.5 Gt CO2/yr in RCP2.6). More aggressive near-term reductions would allow 2°C to be avoided with less end-of-century carbon removal capacity. A 10% cut in GHGEs by 2030 (relative to 2015) could likely achieve 2°C with RCP2.6 level negative emissions. The 1.5°C target requires GHGEs to be reduced by almost a third by 2030 and net zero by 2050, while a 50 year overshoot of 1.5°C allows net zero GHGEs by 2060."

Extract: "Humans will have to not only stop emitting greenhouse gases by 2085, but also develop technology that will result in negative emissions — the removal of 15 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year by the end of the century — in order to prevent global warming from exceeding 2°C (3.6°F), according to a new study."

"The brief will be folded into an expanded Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy under Greg Clark.Ed Miliband, the former energy and climate secretary under Labour, called the move "plain stupid".It comes at a time when campaigners are urging the government to ratify the Paris climate change deal."

"The brief will be folded into an expanded Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy under Greg Clark.Ed Miliband, the former energy and climate secretary under Labour, called the move "plain stupid".It comes at a time when campaigners are urging the government to ratify the Paris climate change deal."

That looks bad. But (from the same article):

Quote

The new Defra Secretary Andrea Leadsom has re-iterated that there will be no deviation from long-term carbon targets.

Greg Clark, the man in charge of the expanded department, was a Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate and has written papers on achieving a Low Carbon Economy.

If you really intend climate change to drive an industrial transformation, why not embrace it within a powerful department that's developing the sort of industrial strategy needed to forge a genuine Low Carbon economy?

So, it could be a positive, or a negative. (Although they should not rule out a "deviation" to stronger carbon targets! )

Logged

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

While the U.K. Climate Change Department debacle at least suggests the possibility of a positive outcome... the U.S. Congress does nothing of the sort :

Exercise In Futility: There Is No Way Obama Will Sign The EPA Budget The House Wants

Quote

If you think that Congress is broken and nothing gets done, this story is for you.

The House has finished considering amendments for and is expected to pass a bill that will fund the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and several other related administrative offices. There is virtually zero chance that the bill will ever become law.

The bill, as written by the Republican-led House, prohibits the EPA from implementing the Clean Power Plan or the Waters of the United States rule, two key administration priorities and also helpful ways to keep our air and water at levels that can sustain human life. Even if the Senate version didn’t face a filibuster, President Obama has already said he will veto a bill that doesn’t allow the EPA to do its job.

The linked report is entitled: " A BRIDGE TOO FAR: HOW APPALACHIAN BASIN GAS PIPELINE EXPANSION WILL UNDERMINE U.S. CLIMATE GOALS". It appears that with current development plans the US will not be able to meet its voluntary Paris Pact commitments without a major reduction in natural gas leakage rates (see the attached images):

Extract: "This report details the increasing threat to the climate from American natural gas production. We document the emergence of the Appalachian Basin as the key source of projected natural gas production growth in the coming decades. We also identify the proposed pipelines that would enable that growth, and how this gas production would undermine national and global climate goals."

Extract: "“Amending the Montreal Protocol to phase down HFCs is one of the single most important unitary steps that we could possibly take at this moment to stave off the worst impacts of climate change and to protect the future for people in every single corner of the globe,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in a speech to negotiators in Vienna on Friday."

« Last Edit: July 24, 2016, 05:35:23 PM by AbruptSLR »

Logged

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” ― Leon C. Megginson

Extract: "UN criticises UK and Germany for betraying Paris climate deal…But she said her criticism was far from limited to the two countries. “We want all countries to end [fossil fuel] subsidies,” she said.…Presidents and prime ministers across the world are making investment decisions that run contrary the Paris deal, they warned. “Some countries are even increasing subsidies to fossil fuel production. This is simply not good enough. While all countries need to act, the industrialised and wealthy countries must lead by example.”…They also said that governments needed to adopt carbon pricing. Ernesto Zedillo, one of the group and a former president of Mexico, said: “Governments and businesses may pay lip service to the transition to carbon neutrality but they need an economic imperative to ditch old models and move to environmentally sustainable investments: pricing carbon provides such an incentive.”Furthermore, the Elders said they were concerned that the world’s top 10 biggest greenhouse gas emitters had not yet ratified the Paris deal. The US and China have both pledged to ratify the deal this year, which only comes into force once at least 55 countries representing at least 55% of global emissions have ratified."

Logged

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” ― Leon C. Megginson

The graphic is inspired by Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist and data viz expert, and shows with heartbreaking clarity how quickly we're burning fossil fuels, and what that means for the climate. The 1.5°C mark, you'll remember, was the rallying cry at Paris last December. From the looks of it, we only have about 5 years to get to essentially zero emissions before we lock in that level of change.

The City of Sydney has raised the bar on its renewable energy and climate targets, with the release of a new five-year plan that targets 50 per cent renewable electricity by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050.

Released on Tuesday, the Environmental Action 2016–2021 plan builds on the City’s already ambitious long-term program – including a 70 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 – taking into account advances in renewables technology and the global climate commitments made in Paris last December.

Abstract: "The 2015 Paris Agreement aims to limit warming to 2 or 1.5°C above preindustrial level, although combined Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) are likely insufficient to achieve these targets. We propose a set of idealized emission pathways consistent with the targets. If countries reduce emissions in line with their INDCs, the 2°C threshold could be avoided only if net zero greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs) are achieved by 2085 and late century negative emissions are considerably in excess of those assumed in Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6 (net −5 Gt CO2/yr, compared with −1.5 Gt CO2/yr in RCP2.6). More aggressive near-term reductions would allow 2°C to be avoided with less end-of-century carbon removal capacity. A 10% cut in GHGEs by 2030 (relative to 2015) could likely achieve 2°C with RCP2.6 level negative emissions. The 1.5°C target requires GHGEs to be reduced by almost a third by 2030 and net zero by 2050, while a 50 year overshoot of 1.5°C allows net zero GHGEs by 2060."

Extract: "To achieve a stable climate, a balance will likely need to be reached between emissions and carbon dioxide removal, but the need for negative emissions later can be dramatically reduced through rapid emissions reductions in the near future. If the mitigation process begins in earnest in 2020, the researchers found that net emissions would need to reach zero by 2060 to limit global temperature increase to 2°C or by 2043 to limit it to 1.5°C. Allowing 50 extra years for Earth’s temperature to exceed goals and then cool back down increases planning flexibility, but even in an overshoot scenario, rapid mitigation in the near term remains necessary. The later mitigation begins, the fewer plausible scenarios exist that avoid 2°C of warming worldwide, let alone stick to the 1.5°C goal."

Logged

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” ― Leon C. Megginson

India has agreed to work toward joining the Paris Agreement on climate change this year, India and the United States said on Tuesday, giving a jolt of momentum to the international fight to curb global warming...."We discussed how we can, as quickly as possible, bring the Paris Agreement into force," Obama told reporters. Climate change is a legacy issue for the U.S. president who leaves office in January.

India's potential entrance into the agreement this year would help accelerate its enactment, perhaps years ahead of schedule. India is the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas emitter after China and the United States.

New York officials approved a clean energy standard on Monday that requires half of the state’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030.

The initiative, passed by the Public Service Commission, also includes a nuclear power incentive under which utilities will pay nearly $1 billion over two years to subsidize three of the state’s nuclear power plants.

The plan’s supporters, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), see the nuclear subsidies as a way to avoid new carbon pollution as the state works toward its goal of using 50 percent renewables like wind and solar.

“We could not possibly replace those nuclear units if they were to shut,” Public Service Commission Chairwoman Audrey Zibelman said at the Monday meeting, according to Reuters.

The plan puts New York on par with California among states with the highest renewable energy mandates.

The Northeast U.S. Is Considering A Major Extension To Its Emissions Program

Quote

... RGGI has been more successful, in fact, than it was ever projected to be. In the initial design process, emissions limits were set to roughly “no growth.” That is, participants were hoping to just slightly decrease emissions. They outdid themselves....It’s hard to argue with an emissions reduction program that not only works but also works as an economic driver.

The revenue from the quarterly emissions credit auctions goes back into the states’ economies — largely as efficiency programs. For instance, a Maine resident might be able to replace her windows or insulate her attic. Someone in Massachusetts might be able to install a modern, efficiency furnace. These improvements have direct economic benefits — both because someone is paid to make these improvements and because, going forward, they save residents money that can be spent elsewhere.

In Tuesday’s letter, the companies write, “Our support for RGGI is firmly grounded in economic reality.”One report estimated that RGGI had boosted the region’s economic activity by $1.3 billion.

From 2008 to 2015, RGGI states have seen their economies grow faster than the rest of the country, while decreasing emissions twice as quickly, according to the first of a two-part report from Acadia Center looking at what RGGI has done so far.